Today’s New York Times quotes John Dehlin to the effect that Mitt Romney is not steadfast, is shady (i.e. not “up front”), lacks integrity, and is inconsistent. It is unclear what these judgments are based on, but these were not the only notable comments relating to Romney and Mormonism in today’s newspaper article. The impetus behind such comments, especially in the context of the rest of the NYT article, seems to be that Romney is somehow misrepresenting the Mormon faith or Mormon doctrine.

More interesting in this regard, perhaps, is the following commentary in the article:

Another case [of what the NYT article claims is Romney’s “tendency to gloss over Mormonismâ€™s history and distinctive tenets” which has supposedly “upset some fellow Mormons”] arose when George Stephanopoulos of ABC News asked Mr. Romney about a Mormon teaching that Jesus will come to the United States when he returns to reign on earth. Mr. Romney responded that the Messiah will return to the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, â€œthe same as the other Christian tradition.â€

Mr. Grover said some of his radio listeners were astounded.

“They were just in disbelief, saying that’s not true, Jesus is coming back to Missouri,” Mr. Grover said. “It’s the L.D.S. Church’s 10th article of faith that Zion will be built upon the American continent.”

Tom Grover’s listeners (apparently) were incredulous at Romney’s comment that Latter-day Saints believe that Christ will return again to the Mount of Olives just like creedal Christians believe.

The scriptures read and believed by Latter-day Saints weigh against Tom Grover’s incredulous listeners and against Tom Grover’s own presentation of the issue. After all, the Doctrine and Covenants reiterates the Old Testament prophecy in Zecharia (Zech. 14:4-9) that Christ will appear at the Mount of Olives, dividing it asunder:

48 And then shall the Lord set his foot upon this mount, and it shall cleave in twain, and the earth shall tremble, and reel to and fro, and the heavens also shall shake.
49 And the Lord shall utter his voice, and all the ends of the earth shall hear it; and the nations of the earth shall mourn, and they that have laughed shall see their folly.
50 And calamity shall cover the mocker, and the scorner shall be consumed; and they that have watched for iniquity shall be hewn down and cast into the fire.
51 And then shall the Jews look upon me and say: What are these wounds in thine hands and in thy feet?
52 Then shall they know that I am the Lord; for I will say unto them: These wounds are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. I am he who was lifted up. I am Jesus that was crucified. I am the Son of God. (D&C 45:48-52)

To what extent can LDS radio listeners who call in to a radio talk show and voice their own misunderstanding of “Mormon Doctrine” be determinative for whether Romney is being disingenuous in how he is portraying the faith? The Tenth Article of Faith is irrelevant to the question of whether Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus will appear to the view of all the world at the Mount of Olives, smashing it in two, at the Second Coming. Latter-day Saints believe in addition to this fantastic and incredible tale — but not instead of — in further fantastic and incredible tales. Grover’s listeners should not be incensed when Romney reinforces that Latter-day Saints join creedal Christians in believing in Christ’s Second Coming at the Mount of Olives.

It is unclear why Grover would present it as some sort of categorical thing — Latter-day Saints believe that Christ will also play a role in the New Jerusalem that is to be built on the American continent so therefore we don’t believe that Christ will appear at the Mount of Olives at the Second Coming. This simply isn’t true. “Zion” being built on the American continent does not negate and is in fact irrelevant to whether Latter-day Saints believe that Christ will appear at the Mount of Olives. It is a mischaracterization to suggest that there is a fundamental tension or any kind of incongruity between these two occurences.

Finally, it is also curious that Mitt Romney would need to answer questions about the Latter-day Saint view of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ in a political debate or as part of his campaign for political office in the United States of America. A belief that the New Jerusalem will be built on the American Continent is not necessarily any more bizarre than a belief in transubstantiation, Rapture, reincarnation, salvation by grace alone, religious salvation of any kind whatsoever, heaven or hell, the devil, Greco-Roman deities, Quetzalcoatl, or anything outside of our empirical capacity at all.

I have most of the problems with Romney that the NYT article (dubiously) ascribes to most Mormons.

I see him as overly-pandering to the lunatic right. Stem cells? Yeah he’s gone overboard there in my book. Polygamy? I actually do think he’s overcompensating. I respect polygamy’s place in our history and I see no reason to be embarrassed about the practice per se, while I find Romney’s overwrought response irritating. New Jerusalem? While I appreciate your exposition of doctrinal subtleties, I still think Romney was being evasive. Abortion? Again, I find Romney to be going over the top, and given his stance in Massachusetts, and his own Church’s more moderate position, I have a hard time believing that Romney himself believes his own rhetoric. The abortion thing is just a blatant attempt to grab votes.

Do I like the way our religious ethos has been handcuffed to the GOP? Absolutely not. I think it completely rejects and ignores a deep history of political liberalism in Mormon culture.

I also think it’s utterly moronic that our entire religious political destiny is being determined by this dumb abortion question. Romney seems quite willing to drag us all back there, as do many Mormons.

I see Romney as representing some of the worst impulse of mainstream Mormon pandering in the the US. A lot of Mormons are so desperate to be popular in America, that I think they’d willingly spit on any unpopular group, compromise their religious precepts, and sell their own grandmother for a shot at a favorable news spot on 60 Minutes.

It’s part of the persecution complex where a picked-on unpopular kid allies himself with the schoolyard bully and starts mocking and harassing other vulnerable kids. Mormons are almost tripping over themselves to gain admittance into the privileged club of wealthy American conservative Protestants. If that means jettisoning a few quirky doctrines, so be it.

I find it rather questionable that the NYT would choose John Dehlin as representing “most Mormons.” I think he and I (and many others around here) represent a group of fringe Mormons who, while over-represented on the bloggernacle, are not all that common in Mormon American chapels.

Did you read the Dushku interview linked to on the BCC sidebar? Terrible interviewer, but some interesting stuff from Dushku, including the claim that Romney took a pro-choice stance in Mass. because “the brethren” told him that was the only way to win. Stuff like that doesn’t go down well. Who knows what the truth is.

Re #2. I don’t think the NYT was quoting Dehlin as being representative of “most Mormons.” His quote followed a graph on politically liberal Mormons, which the experts tell us are in the minority of Mormons. (I am not so sure, since where I live, many if not most LDS are registered Democrats.)

I agree with Seth R’s comments about Romney’s flip-flopping and pandering. I have no interest in voting for a candidate like that.

I agree with most of Seth’s comments, but on the specific issue of the Second Coming (the topic, after all, of the original post), I am inclined to give Romney a break. As I understand Mormon doctrine, when the newspaper headline is written after the Second Coming, it will read “Christ Returns to Mount of Olives.” At that point, nobody will say “Aha. Mitt was being evasive.”

The issue with where the Savior will first come is complicated, because he will indeed come to the Americas first, but in a meeting of only the elect in Missouri (according to Bruce R. McConkie’s “Millennial Messiah.”). His Second Coming, however, is at the Mount of Olives as prophesied. As far as where he will reside, I frankly don’t know.

Why do we care? Seriously. It seems more important to me that we believe that Christ will return at all than to argue about *where* he will return. What’s next? “Mitt Romney declares Christ will part his hair to the right when He comes again?”

He glossed over the question, John. What would have been so bad about him just saying, “why, yes, we do believe that. How is that relevant to my qualifications as president? How do you suppose that might affect my presidency?” For heaven’s sake, it’s a stupid question. Glossing over it makes it important.

Oh, my Lord. If Mitt Romney is the best we can produce, we are so screwed.

I agree with Seth, except I don’t think John Dehlin represents a group is all that fringe. Perhaps less and less fringe with each passing day. Sure is quiet down here in so. Utah on the “defend GWB” front these days.

Mitt Romney just isn’t all that smart. He’s going to shoot himself in the foot, just watch. He looks like Dudley Do-Right, if he looked more like oh, Joe ordinary guy, he wouldn’t be in the running right now. Looks and money, that’s all he’s got.

As an aside, though, John, I have a friend who’s a precinct head or whatever it’s called of a district in Iowa. I’m murdering whatever it is, but she and her husband are devout evangelical Christians and they absolutely love Mitt Romney.

It’s not Romney’s responsibility to clear up confusion on the status of doctrinal issues such as polygamy, the mechanics of the Second Coming, etc. I’m sure Romney has already stated to the media that specific doctrinal questions should be directed to the Church and not to him. And when the Church chooses to remain silent, or ambiguous/ambivalent about these issues, Romney looks complicitly evasive by not answering the questions – as if he/the Church have something to hide or to be embarrassed about in their religious beliefs.

Romney is doing an excellent job answering questions directed to him about his religion. It’s a difficult situation to be in – imagine being the token Mormon at your workplace with your colleagues (and boss!) asking you all kinds of off-the-wall questions about the Church – and your answers being broadcast all over the company (or world, in Romney’s case) as officially representating your religion.

Mormons should be more supportive of Romney’s efforts to explain himself and his religion given the complexity of Mormon doctrinal (and cultural) evolution. He’s obviously proud to be a Mormon, so let’s give him a break for once.

ECS, I absolutely agree. Mormonism can be so amorphous and personal religious views so contrary that a politician should not be its representative. I mean, look at the discussion we have on the bloggernacle every day! We can’t even at times agree on the fundimentals. Romney shouldn’t be asked questions about his Church because no other politician has ever been or currently is. At least not in such a direct and specific way.

Please don’t mock Latter-day Saints on this thread Nick. There are plenty of other places for you to do it. It just isn’t nice.

For Google searchers who stumble on this: very few Latter-day Saints, if any at all, believe that Jesus will be clean shaven, wearing a white shirt and a tie when he returns. Nick is just saying this because for some reason he is bitter against the idea that many Latter-day Saint men dress in business suits with white shirts and ties and are clean-shaven when they attend Church. This ignores the fact (obviously) that many Latter-day Saint men also wear shirts of every other color and often are not clean-shaven at Church — but it is true that perhaps the majority do wear the suit and white shirt and are clean shaven. Also, Church leaders uniformly wear business suits, white shirts and ties, and since the 1960s or so have been uniformly clean-shaven. Some have found this to be a point of criticism of the Church.

No, Elizabeth we’re not required to support him just because he’s a Mormon.
I mean, why? Should all Catholics support a Catholic president? What’s up with that logic.

If he were so proud to be a Mormon, he should tell the truth. It’s a simple yes or no question, for heaven’s sake.

He could say, “Yes, but it’s more complicated than that. Are we here to discuss the presidency or Mormonism? Because I could come back and do another show, bringing some of my Mormon friends and we can all learn about Mormonism together. How about the prophet? No? Well, I would like to talk about the immigration problem and I don’t think it matters where I think the second coming of Christ is going to be in relationship to our monumental illegal immigration problem. Let’s talk about immigration….”

Or ask, “Yes, how does my answer to that affect my stance on immigration or abortion, or the rampant drug problem in America, or the war in Iraq? I’ll answer that. It doesn’t. I don’t mind discussing my religion, but we only have 45 minutes and I’d like to discuss my candidacy. Since you didn’t ask, I will. What do I think about the problem of immigration, this is what I think….”

I should be his campaign manager. The first candidate in history to have a campaign manager who hates him. well, hate is a strong word.

He can change the subject, politicians to it all the time. So do missionaries.

ECS, I just realized who you are. I thought you were a guy. Where’ve you been?

“but it was also misleading.” Thank God for that! A silly question shouldn’t be answered in any other way than contempt. The question itself was misleading. The interviewer knew darn well (proven by his later comments about the comment) it had nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with creedal Christians. Again, he is not a representative of the Church in theological matters. He is a politician.

LOL, annegb. Maybe Romney was confused about the Second Coming? I don’t think we’ve ever been given specific details of Jesus’ ETA or destination. It’s not fair to say he was lying about this issue.

As for Romney’s statements on polygamy, many Mormons believe that practicing polygamy would be a very bad thing. I think Romney’s response was honest. Feel free to criticize Romney for not being more supportive of his polygamous ancestors, but many faithful LDS members see polygamy in a (very) negative light.

One of the great things about being a Mormon (and a citizen of the U.S.) is that you can choose to vote for or against the Mormon candidate based on her or his political agenda and not because of her or his religion.

Perhaps the bloggernacle could end the mental masturbation around defining ‘What Mormons Belive’. To be honest, the definitions in this forum are a continum that is consistently on the left side of mormon beliefs. Even the right wing blogs, with the possible exception of the racists.

What mormons belive is what the people who call themselves mormons bleive. This is a pastiche of folk doctrine, rumor and questionable interpretaiton of the scriptures built around a semi-solid framework of General Conference addresses and scripture. As much as I hate it, it includes things like the White Horse prophecy, the Dream Mine, Adam-God, prophecies about the significance of backwoods areas of Mormon settlement (Cardston has a few prophecies about her that are treasured there…) Mormons don’t even know what Mormons belive on all aspects of our doctrine. The more I learn the more confused I get. So, in a media sense, defining mormon doctrine is like trying to nail jello to the wall… to use an old turn of phrase.

This isn’t Romeny’s problem alone… it’s all of ours. We dont’ have a systemic theology.
And we’re trying to sell that to a national media the just dosnt get subltety, let alone religion.

Anne # 11 — I agree that part of his answer should have been “why on earth, George S., do you think that will affect my presidency?” But as to the other part of your question, What would have been so bad about him just saying, “why, yes, we do believe that,” my response would be that Latter-day Saints don’t really believe what George S. either intentionally or unintentionally implied, as I noted over at BCC.

Romney seems to have thought that Stephanopoulos was implying that Latter-day Saints do not believe that Jesus will appear at the Mount of Olives but rather in America. It is clearly not the case that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus will appear in America rather than at the Mount of Olives. Latter-day Saints believe that he will appear at the Mount of Olives, just like creedal Christians do, and also that he will play a role in the New Jerusalem that Latter-day Saints believe will be located in America during the Millenium. In other words, Romney was answering what Stephanopoulos was really asking: â€œBut donâ€™t Mormons believe that Jesus will come to America instead of the Holy Land in the Second Coming?â€

In other words, with only a few seconds of time, Romney had to diffuse the mischaracterization that Stephanopoulos, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was creating with the question. With only a few seconds, Romney cannot explain the broader belief system of Latter-day Saints as to Jesus’ activities in the Second Coming and the Millenium.

When he said â€œThat is not a doctrine of my churchâ€, the most reasonable reading of the statement, given that we all know that we believe that Jesus will play a role on the American continent during the Millenium, and we know that Romney knows this, is that Romney was saying that with reference to the idea underlying Stephanopoulosâ€™s question that Latter-day Saints donâ€™t believe as â€œother Christiansâ€ do that Jesus will appear in the Holy Land at the Second Coming.

Mitt Romney just isnâ€™t all that smart. Heâ€™s going to shoot himself in the foot, just watch. He looks like Dudley Do-Right, if he looked more like oh, Joe ordinary guy, he wouldnâ€™t be in the running right now. Looks and money, thatâ€™s all heâ€™s got.

Then what is everyone worrying about? His opponents can rest easy; the media can forget his Mormonism; people can stop ridiculously calling him a liar (I don’t see why people don’t seem to see how severe of a charge this is). He’ll croak anyway and people can drill the next Mormon candidate on his religion. I shudder to think of what would happen if a Hindu ran for President:

Mr. Gandhi, don’t you believe there will be no Second Coming of Jesus Christ at all?

Anne, I think you have misread ECS in # 17. She was not saying that Latter-day Saints should support Romney because he belongs to the same Church. She was saying that given the complicated nature of the task, Romney is doing an okay job in trying to give succinct answers that at the same time try to turn the focus away from his religion, where the focus shouldn’t be.

For Google searchers who stumble on this: very few Latter-day Saints, if any at all, believe that Jesus will be clean shaven, wearing a white shirt and a tie when he returns. [It is unclear why Nick is saying this] but it is true that many Latter-day Saint men dress in business suits with white shirts and ties and are clean-shaven when they attend Church. [Of course] many Latter-day Saint men also wear shirts of every other color and often are not clean-shaven at Church â€” but it is true that perhaps the majority do wear the suit and white shirt and are clean shaven. Also, Church leaders uniformly wear business suits, white shirts and ties, and since the 1960s or so have been uniformly clean-shaven. Some have found this to be a point of criticism of the Church.

Nick, I didn’t take offense at it; I saw it as a cheap shot; didn’t want it to go unaddressed and so addressed it (probably would have been better to ignore it altogether); and didn’t see any reason this thread should devolve into a mockery of aspects of LDS church life or practice. Other threads provide ample platform for it. It has nothing to do with being offended.

(I’m responding here because of some of the back-and-forth between Nick and John F.)

You’ve made sarcastic or edged comments in the past about the Church or its leaders – and been called on it. We know that you have left the church, that you are gay, etc. and etc. At this point, because of your past record, the burden is on you to be extra careful not to make any comments that might be construed in that light.

Come on. Everyone knows that it is only ok to make jokes about the in-group if one is part of the in-group. I can razz my family but you can’t. Since you aren’t a Mormon anymore you should know that taking pot-shots at Mormons will often not be welcomed by Mormons. This is basic social skills stuff bro.

Re # 34, Nick wrote Now that youâ€™ve clearly read my response to your umbrage, your comments in #32 and #33 are just uncalled for.

They are not uncalled for. I was explaining my comment # 16 in 32 and 33. I don’t see why explaining to you that it was not about offense is uncalled for. And my edited version of comment # 16 takes direct note of your responses.

In light of Nick’s # 34, I make one more change to my # 16 as follows:

For Google searchers who stumble on this: very few Latter-day Saints, if any at all, believe that Jesus will be clean shaven, wearing a white shirt and a tie when he returns. [It is unclear why Nick is saying this] but it is true that many Latter-day Saint men dress in business suits with white shirts and ties and are clean-shaven when they attend Church. [Of course] many Latter-day Saint men also wear shirts of every other color and often are not clean-shaven at Church â€” but it is true that perhaps the majority do wear the suit and white shirt and are clean shaven. Also, Church leaders uniformly wear business suits, white shirts and ties, and since the 1960s or so have been uniformly clean-shaven. Some have found this to be a point of criticism of the Church.

Nick says he was joking when he implied that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus will appear clean-shaven with a white shirt and tie in the Second Coming. He was poking fun at the fact that Latter-day Saints often wear business attire at Church and that while he was in local Church leadership, he overheard other local leaders voicing concern that people in the locality weren’t wearing enough business attire to Church.

Dude… Nick. You were mocking aspects of LDS church life/practices. That is obvious. Why all the whining about getting called out for it? So your attempted joke fell flat — happens to everyone. If you don’t like getting called out for mocking Mormons at Mormon blogs then change your own behavior and stop mocking Mormons at Mormon blogs.

I doubt Nick is upset about a joke falling flat. More likely, he’s upset about the implication of malicious intent.

Who would Google this page and believe that Mormons profess any insight into the millennial wardrobe of the Savior and would actually pass it on to others who would believe we have said insight? I think your castigating Nick over nothing and underestimating the intelligence of people who might stumble across this page.

Why does someone saying Mitt is the ‘best we can produce’ make me think they’re talking about his financial success? I can’t see any other explanation, though I’m in complete agreement with annegb concerning Romney, so maybe I’m biased.

47. Perhaps they are refering specifically of presidential candidates. I’m currious as to who you or annegb would suggest would be a better/more electable presidential candidate if the meaning is taken that way.

1. it seems to me that you have a rather overactive paranoia. You see PBS as the anti-LDS bogeyman.

This is not true. I made very clear on the thread you are referring to that I very much enjoyed the PBS documentary and thought it was very well done. You seemed to comprehend that (finally) at the time on that thread but now you are again saying I found it to be an “anti-Mormon bogeyman”.

2. You see anyone who leaves the LDS church as the anti-LDS bogeyman.

I am not sure what you are basing this on. There can be little argument, however, that many people who leave the Church become anti-Mormons. But I do not believe that anything I have written requires the conclusion that I believe anyone who leaves the Church to be an anti-Mormon bogeyman.

3. It seems you believe that anything said or done by someone outside your little LDS circle must always be â€œattackingâ€ the LDS church.

My little LDS circle? I don’t know what you know about me or think you know about me, but, whatever. I don’t think that every negative comment about Mormons and their beliefs is attacking the Church but there’s also no reason to let people think there was something accurate behind your statement implying that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus will be clean-shaven and wear a white shirt and tie when he comes again.

4. Suppose I had chosen another joke, â€œNonsense! Jesus will come bearing lime jello!â€ I can just imagine your lengthy post, warning potential Googlers that Nick is just an anti-LDS, and that LDS really donâ€™t believe Jesus will bring lime Jello at the Second Coming.

I never said Nick was anti-LDS but I did make an assumption that the reason behind your statement implying that Jesus would be clean shaven and wear a white shirt and tie at the Second Coming was some kind of bitter feelings or negative view on your part of the practice of many LDS men to wear business attire to Church. You have explained that my assumption was unwarranted and that you harbor no such feelings. I have now incorporated that into my edit of comment # 16 (see comment # 41).

5. Why must you feel that an innocent giggle is â€œmockery,â€ even to the point of twice suggesting that I leave this blog? Grow up!

a. I never said you should leave the blog although I did say that you could make pejorative statements about the beliefs and lifestyle of many Latter-day Saints on other threads, which includes other threads on this blog.

b. Mockery of an aspect of LDS “culture” (for better or worse) of wearing business attire to Church informed your joke; it might be funny coming from an insider, as Geoff J. has suggested (although I have argued with Ronan about this as well) but coming from an outsider, it is hard to overlook the mocking undertone.

re # 43: â€œHe overheard?â€ Sheesh, john. You just canâ€™t take ANYTHING at face value from us evil former LDS, can you? I didnâ€™t â€œoverhearâ€ anything. I was part of the meeting, and part of the intended audience/discussion. Donâ€™t imply that I was somehow lurking outside the door, listening in.

This is not right. In my # 41, which is an edit of my # 16 and incorporates Nick’s explanation of his joke, I added

He was poking fun at the fact that Latter-day Saints often wear business attire at Church and that while he was in local Church leadership, he overheard other local leaders voicing concern that people in the locality werenâ€™t wearing enough business attire to Church.

I used this phraseology purposefully but not for the reason that Nick misinterprets above. Rather, I meant it to give Nick the benefit of the doubt because I was conscious not to attribute such attitudes to him, i.e., I was trying to avoid implying that Nick himself was one of the local Church leaders in question who made the suggestion, or agreed with it, that Latter-day Saints in that locality weren’t wearing appropriate business attire (so I was assuming that Nick wouldn’t be so judgmental or irrational). My efforts to give Nick the benefit of the doubt by stating that he only overheard his fellow local leaders make this observation have provoked an angry response from Nick, which is the opposite result I was aiming for.

I tend to agree with ECS. I think Romney is doing an ok job of representing our religion. I certainly wouldn’t want the task or having to have sit down interviews about both my politics and my religion at the same time. Obviously some of the commenters here feel they would do a better job than Romney. I challenge them to run for president and do a better job.

I don’t care for Romney as a candidate, but I also don’t think he is doing our religion major harm.

I honestly believe it is easier for a Mormon to become president as a Democrat than a Republican. The reason why Romney’s religious beliefs are continually brought up is because of the complex relationship between Protestants, the Republican party, and Mormonism. There really is no debate about a candidate’s religious belief on the left.

I donâ€™t care for Romney as a candidate, but I also donâ€™t think he is doing our religion major harm.

I don’t think he has either. I think most people’s views about Mormonism won’t really change that much because of him. I think he fits the stereotype of the Republican Mormon Christian.

ECS is right on. Romney isn’t a public figure because he’s a church leader. He’s a public figure because he’s a political leader. It just so happens that he’s Mormon. He’s entitled to believe whatever he wants and articulate those beliefs as clearly as he’s able. Mormons who evaluate Romney on anything other than his effectiveness as a political leader encourage the world to believe that we Mormons expect him to address our needs over those of other constituents. I wrote a post arguing along these lines some time ago, entitled, “Who Do Romney and Ried Represent Anyway?“

Okay, this is what most of this reads like: “I take offense at #34, which you should clearly not have written until you re-read my #10 & 21. Obviously in #48 I cleared everything that was misconstrued by #’s 22-33 & 34-47. Please now refer to my posts #59 & 60 to see how stupid I think you all are.”

We could try communicating with Math. It’s the prime language of the universe.

By the way, Anne, I never took offense. I am unsure why responding to Nick’s comment is considered taking offense. I asked him not to mock Mormons on this thread but that is not the same thing as saying I took offense at anything he did.

Iâ€™m disappointed that Ken Godfrey is quoted as saying Romney â€œrepresents the best of what the church can produce.â€ Iâ€™ve known Ken for a long time. I also know his wonderful wife, Audrey, who is quoted more sensibly in the article (saying sheâ€™d be upset at Romneyâ€™s polygamy comment, if she was one of his relatives).

I’m betting that Godfrey was taken out of context. I know him pretty well, and I’ll bet he had a lot more to say, and that it was a lot more nuanced, than what the NY Times used. In fact, I bet they did an extensive interview (and photo op in front of the Logan temple), but cut it down to a couple of pithy quotes, one each for Bro. and Sis. Godfrey.

It doesn’t surprise me that a prominent Mormon serving in a prominent public position in SLC would spend more time with President Hinkley than other members and I don’t think that should cause us any worry. I wouldn’t care if Rudy Giuliani knew similar things about the Pope.

What does his special press conference, which he says was called in order to try to separate the LDS church from the games in public opinion, say to observers about how Romney treats his church membership in the public sphere?

That he doesn’t think his Church membership should matter in his public work? It shouldn’t. And it wouldn’t bother me at all to know that he has strategies for getting people to look past the Mormon thing.

Nick, that is so cool! Congratulations! Where in Washington state are you? I love the Seattle area.

I tried to retain Nate Oman against future criminal charges, but he never returned my e-mail calls. I need to have someone to call when I get arrested and remain silent except to “lawyer up” (I watch Law and Order) besides the guy who draws up our wills.

I don’t mean to sidetrack the thread…I just wanted to add a clarification and an observation.

The clarification: My comments to the NYTimes were mostly in reference to Romney’s changes on political issues like abortion, stem cell stuff, gun control and gays (not his statements about Mormon doctrine). What made me excited about Romney at first (other than the fact that I, too, once was a Bain employee) was that he appeared to be of good character, successful, smart, and LDS — but that he also seemed to have his own moral compass (deviating from my impressions of the church’s position on abortion, gays, etc.). In other words, I saw him as principled, and progressive — simultaneously. This, to me, was exhilarating.

But when he started caving on all those issues to pander to the right for the primaries (that’s how I interpret it, anyway….and I’ll admit it’s just my opinion), then I became disillusioned. For those who agree that he was pandering — yes I know that this is just a reality in the U.S. political process. I’m just saying that it was disappointing to me.

Last week my feelings about all this hit a new low, when both Chris Matthews and the “Left, right and center” folks, when discussing Romney, kept saying, “Is he sincere? Can he be believed? How credible is he? Isn’t he just an opportunist?” Yes we Mormons are different, but I would hope that we could at least claim consistency, conviction and unquestioned integrity to our advantage. This Romney, this seems to be where he’s WEAKEST OF ALL, not strongest. Which, for me, is sad — since in many ways he is representing us right now — much more to the mainstream than any church leader has for a long time.

In my heart and mind, I wanted Romney + conviction and consistency. If he had shown this, I would have quit my job and joined his campaign as a volunteer — and I’m not kidding.

And the observation: Tom Grover is a very good friend of mine. In my opinion, he was just reflecting the comments made on his radio show by fellow Loganites, though I imagine that he shares these views as well. But to make this about Tom is to be a bit in denial. When LDS leaders or Romney back away from our historical doctrine, it makes traditional believing members uncomfortable. This is only natural, in my view. Again — to what extent are we, as Mormons, willing to stand up and be firm about what we believe in, vs. cave for expediency’s sake? On Mormon doctrine, over the past 10 years or so, it seems like we’re really retreating for expediency’s sake, and then trying to rewrite history as though we never really believed the things that we all knew then were true.

I think you misread Dehlin from the start. When Dehlin said he wished Romney had been more steadfast, I think he was referring to his former, more liberal positions. I don’t think it had anything to do with his “doctrinal” orthodoxy, and I use quotes because the location of the Garden of Eden is a big part of the dcotrinal issue being discussed, and a recent Church press release ranked that doctrine as being low in mportance compared to others. From that statement, I read that it’s okay for me to misunderstand that “doctrine,” or simply decide that I don’t care.
If people think Christ will come to America first, then good for them- for people in the traditional Mount of Olives camp, good for them too. I am very steadfast in not having an opinion one way or another on the matter. If Mitt Romney would get more comfortable saying things like “I have no idea” and “I profoundly don’t care” and “I really don’t relate to people who feel very strongly about those kinds of questions,” he could save himself a lot of trouble.

You know, I think my negative emotions are more disappointment, also. I would really like to see a good president who is also a good Mormon and a good person. And smart and strong. I’m sure Brother Romney is a good Mormon and a good person, but not as smart and strong as he needs to be.

I tell you, I would vote for Jim Matheson for president in a New York minute. I’ve voted for him every time. Now that’s a public servant.

re # 73, JD wrote When LDS leaders or Romney back away from our historical doctrine, it makes traditional believing members uncomfortable.

This is not what was going on in the Tom Grover quotes. Mormon Doctrine has always included the belief, together with all creedal Christians, that Jesus will come to the Mount of Olives at the Second Coming. As I wrote in my post, in addition to this fantastic tale, Latter-day Saints believe and have always believed additional fantastic tales about Jesus coming to the American continent to play a role during the Millenium. The belief in this second fantastic tale does not negate, interfere with, or introduce any inconsistency with the belief in Jesus’ coming to the Mount of Olives.

Is there a doctrinal disagreement here, JD? Is it your view that Latter-day Saints at some point in the past have believed that Jesus would come to America instead of to the Mount of Olives at the Second Coming? It was in answer to this implied statement/question of George S. that Romney answered — in as expedient a way as could possibly be expected of a political candidate grilled about his religious beliefs — George S.’s question about Jesus coming to America at the Second Coming.

Yeah….I guess I’m speaking more broadly about how all of us in the church seem to be backing away more and more from Joseph and Brigham’s teachings (towards a more traditional protestantism), while still (paradoxically) holding them as prophets, seers and revelators. It feels so selective at times. Almost disingenuous. And so much is being peeled back — what will remain at the end of the process? And will it be enough for LDS folk to feel like the church is worth fighting for? This is the whole Armand Mauss assimilation/retrenchment discussion, which I’m sure you’re probably tired of by now.

I think you technically may have a point in all this Missouri/Mount of Olives stuff, but in a bit of a broader (macro) sense, I’m thinking more about the broader implications of this distancing. Is it honest? Is it a necessary evil? Or is it absolutely the only way to survive?

Thanks for hosting the discussion either way. I jsut hope we don’t get so focused on the details that we lose sight of the overall dilemma.

great article, i don’t know if you still remmember me but I am the Filipino guy who works in KSA and asked you to help me join the Mormon Archipelago. Im sorry it took me a while to be back online coz i have to bring my wife here with me in KSA. Anyway, sad to know my blogsite is not already in the link of the Mormon Archipelago, hope you can email me the reason why. Anyways, i am blogging too about Romney. Have a great day and keep in touch!

Iâ€™m thinking more about the broader implications of this distancing. Is it honest? Is it a necessary evil? Or is it absolutely the only way to survive?

If it is really happening (I think this is a majorly debatable point), then isn’t it exactly what the critics are always insisting that the Church do? And so the Church does it (just assuming that the Church has done it for the sake of argument) and you criticize the Church for doing it. It presents an interesting dilemma for the Church.

I could be wrong on this, but I think that deep inside Romney is a pragmatist. After all, he has made a living of getting things done in a relatively nonideological fashion, and that’s pretty much what he did as governor.

I can accept that he has truly changed his mind on abortion. But when I hear him praise torture, talk about rounding up more terrorists without trial and doubling the number of prisoners at Guantanamo and that sort of thing, and cracking down on immigrants in a not-so-undersanding fashion, I think he’s pandering. In contrast with being the moderate he was as governor, it seems like he’s coming down on the right-wing end of things merely because he thinks that what will give him the election. And that, indeed, is disillusioning.

And I’m surprised more hasn’t been said about the Dushku interview, which again portrays Romney as a panderer. That interview is pretty damning, by the way.

If I had been running Romney’s campaign, I would have had him say something like this on many of the contentious issues: “In my business career and as governor, I have been able to work with diverse groups and get things done even when there were major obstacles. You can’t do that as an ideologue, and you won’t see be beholden to a particular wing of the party. When it comes to Issue 1, certainly my inclination is to persue position A, position B and position C. But I can understand why other members of my party and some Democrats agree with position D, and I would work to bring all sides together, blah, blah, blah.”

As to the way that Romney has handled the LDS issue, I think he’s mostly done a good job. I thought his reaction to polygamy was a very human one, and I have no problem with his Mount of Olives answer.

But i still cringe when I hear him talking about torture. I’d hate to see people come to think that’s the LDS position.

The dumb thing about it is, I don’t think the right wing of the Republican party is half as blindly ideological as most people (including Republican politicians) think they are.

I think, at their core, they are pragmatists. I mean, come on! They elected a pro-choice governor from California, right? They re-elected Bush, despite the fact that he has done next to nothing for them besides a couple court nominations (which I don’t wish to minimize of course…).

Christian right-wingers, like most people, want to back a winning horse. And, like most people, they are willing to compromise a few things to win. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

More than anything, the Christian right and GOP hardliners want a strong Presidential candidate. Not ideologically pure, not necessarily rabidly anti-abortion. Strong. Period.

McCain’s ideology isn’t half as big a deal as the fact that his campaign just seems anemic right now. Neither have Romney or Giulianni seized the reins in a commanding fashion. Sure, the extreme right would like someone with good ideological credentials, but they’ll rally behind an obvious winner in a heartbeat. Ideology or not.

The pathetic thing here is, Romney’s hard swing to the right actually makes him look weaker in the eyes of the conservative hardliners. Ironically, he probably would have been more attractive to them if he was espousing a more moderate conservative position, with a few MILD shifts toward the right. This would convey an image of a man who is still his own man, but offering the promise of “someone the ideologues can work with.”

He should have maintained his Massachusetts persona, with tantalizing indications of a hardening conservative position.

After all, the hardliners want a candidate who can win the moderates too.

This is my first time on this blog (re-directed from Andrew Sullivan’s blog) and I must profess to being fascinated. Bravo on a high level of discourse and, generally, civil tone. Congratulations to Nick (btw, I was perhaps most fascinated by your and john f.’s exchanges, very revealing to an outsider and not a waste of comment space at all) and thanks to John Dehlin for joining the discussion with clarifying remarks.

I could go on and on, but I wanted to echo Copedi’s concerns (see #82) regarding Mitt’s, at least in my opionon, pandering to the theocon right wing base regarding torture. Specifically,

I can accept that he has truly changed his mind on abortion. But when I hear him praise torture, talk about rounding up more terrorists without trial and doubling the number of prisoners at Guantanamo and that sort of thing, and cracking down on immigrants in a not-so-undersanding fashion, I think heâ€™s pandering. In contrast with being the moderate he was as governor, it seems like heâ€™s coming down on the right-wing end of things merely because he thinks that what will give him the election. And that, indeed, is disillusioning.

I, like many of the commenters on this thread, do not think it is fair that Mitt is put in a position to be the authority, or figurehead, to the MSM on all theological matters Mormon. And, as a non-Mormon, I do not really care what his spiritual beliefs are vis-a-vis his political beliefs. But I am deeply concerned about his politically expedient comments regarding torture. And I am very disappointed that the Republican party, and especially many religious people, of all creeds, within the Republican party, seem to cheer on vague sentiments such as “double the size of Gitmo.”

I’d be very interested to get some comments about how people of faith reconcile our government’s immoral conduct and the aforementioned ugly statement from Mitt with their support for his candidacy.

Thanks.

P.S. The only time that I get riled by Mitt’s Mormon faith is when says things like, “we need to have a person of faith lead the country.”

Iâ€™d be very interested to get some comments about how people of faith reconcile our governmentâ€™s immoral conduct and the aforementioned ugly statement from Mitt with their support for his candidacy.

It is irreconcilable, but then again I’m a Mormon who in no way supports Romney, for his political beliefs. He should have stuck with who he really was, a moderate.

As a LDS member, I echo Fascinated’s call for comments on the juxtaposition of our doctrines with the church’s support of political leaders like Romney, Bush, and Cheney. I’m descended from pioneers who were marked for death by our own government. So when our current prophet welcomes our habeas-corpus-denying, torture-loving, fascist dictator-wannabes with open arms, to the point of inviting Cheney to appear as an inspirational figure to BYU graduates, I have to ask: has he no sense of history?

Today America sees arabs as the faceless, evil, enemy — on nothing more than the word of the President. (Two words, actually — ‘enemy combatant’.)

But at the beginning of our church, it wasn’t arabs who were hunted down, who were denied justice — it was us! Can the prophet not see the recklessness of supporting this president’s mindset and these policies? Can he not see the danger in being a nation of men over a nation of laws? Can he not see the dissonance between Christ-like behavior and that of our Executive branch?

How the hell can our church members, and the population of Utah, be the strongest advocates of the Bush administration?!?

I am saddened to say that this is the one thing in my adult life that has truly shaken my faith to the core. I’m not sure our church is worthy of calling ourselves Christian. Not for the stupid reasons the evangelicals claim, but because Christ himself wouldn’t support the actions or the individuals whom our church leaders wholeheartedly support.

OK, so Mormons believe that Christ will appear at the Mount of Olives AND America. When asked about the American part of this, Romney seemed to deny it. He was clearly being disengenous, and anyone who denies this is not being honest with themselves about him or his candidacy.

This raises a question that is interesting to me. Do non-LDS Christians believe that Christ will appear at the Mount of Olives and then never appear at any other locations? He’ll show up for a few moments and then be gone? Would it be surprising to Christians in general if Christ were to visit different parts of the globe?

Honestly, I don’t think Mitt had time to go into a long explanation of Mormon thinking surrounding the Second Coming. I think that most Mormons would agree that his first public appearance will be at the Mount of Olives. Given that Mormons believe he has already appeared privately to Joseph Smith Jr I don’t see how a Mormon belief in future private appearances would make Romney’s statement inaccurate.

It seems to me that many of our policies have been ill-considered and have in fact made us less safe. My impression is that making a show of effort and revenge have been our two primary motives. I am not as upset as you are at my fellow Mormons, but I do find the enthusiasm that some have for the current administration troubling.

John Williams, I don’t think you get my point. As a group who was at one point living under an execution order from our government, it is the ultimate irony that we’re now, en masse, the most vocal cheerleaders for the brutalists in DC who condone and direct actual torture against potential innocents. Remember “innocent until proven guilty”? This administration skips that step, and simply declares their captives guilty. When did that become acceptable in this blessed land?

It doesn’t matter that the LDS execution order was long, long ago. It doesn’t matter that there’s no moral equivalence between us and the terrorists. As descendants of our pioneer brethren, we bear a responsibility to warn against government brutalism. As descendants of a persecuted people, we have the duty to stop it, but instead Utah is the last bastion of Bush, Cheney, and Romney fanboyism. It’s not right.

Sorry for the potential threadjack, this post was just my first exposure to this website, and at some point upstream the Romney support seemed to make my point relevant. Perhaps there’s some other post where this would make more sense. I’m just so upset about this, and have been keeping it inside for awhile. At one point, my people were champions of liberty. I wonder if we’ll ever be so again. And at the moment, I wonder if ‘my people’ really are who I grew up thinking they were.

…weâ€™re now, en masse, the most vocal cheerleaders for the brutalists in DC who condone and direct actual torture against potential innocents. Remember â€œinnocent until proven guiltyâ€? This administration skips that step, and simply declares their captives guilty. When did that become acceptable in this blessed land?

It has been acceptable in this blessed land for at least the last 63 years. During the 3 week period beginning June 6, 1944 (D-day), our guys simply machine-gunned hundreds, if not thousands, of German soldiers who wanted surrender and become POWs. This was done with the full knowledge of Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, and Eisenhower. What’s worse, shooting a guy who is waving a white flag, or holding him at Gitmo?

I’m not claiming that was the right thing to do; I’m saying that people who want to claim that the Bush administration represents some new kind of evil, as you appear to be doing, do not understand our history.

If someone might have information that could prevent another terrorist attack, then I would support using torture to get this person to divulge this information. Torture for sadistic pleasure is immoral; I’m against that.

I don’t believe Romney, Bush, and Cheney get pleasure from torturing detainees.

Whatâ€™s worse, shooting a guy who is waving a white flag, or holding him at Gitmo?

It depends on what you are doing to him at Gitmo. If you end up using those “enhanced interrogation techniques” borrowed from the Soviets and Nazis, then yes, it probably ends up being better that you shoot them.

John Williams,

The techniques the Bush administration are using down in Gitmo come from the Soviets and the Nazis. We used to fight against them because they used to do these kinds of things to their prisoners. What are we doing now employing their techniques? What does that say about us? Frankly I would rather be a victim of terrorism than have my nation lose so much morality and ethics as to employ these techniques in the name of “security.”

Torture is what the Vietnamese did to John McCain and others. Torture is what Saddaam Hussein and his sons did to countless (probably) millions of his fellow citizens.

I wouldn’t enjoy going through what has been done to illlicit information from these terrorists, but I believe in their secret hearts, they’re thanking God that Saddaam isn’t the one wanting information because they could be kissing their genitals goodbye. And probably anticipating watching their children raped and tortured as well.

Heck, I’ve had three babies, kidney stones, and gallstones. That’s pain. Pain and discomfort are two different things.

I don’t know where Romney stands on torture. He, like me, could be saying it isn’t really torture. Like I?

I wish we could put Romney, Mccain, Fred Thompson into a blender. We’d have to add some antioxidants or something to ward off the cancer, but there you’d have a candidate. He could be non-denominational.

Torture is also what the Soviets and the Nazis did to their prisoners. Do a google search on “Versharfte Vernehmung”, German for “sharpened interrogation.” Note the similarities between the techniques the Gestapo used on Norwegian prisoners and those used at Guantanamo. Then read this report showing how these same techniques were used by the Soviets in their gulags.

Romney supports Bush’s “enhanced interrogation techniques”, these same techniques borrowed from the Soviets and Nazis. Romney has stated this before, on several occasions. And when asked at the Republican debate a few weeks back on a hypothetical situation where one might need to do a Jack Bauer, Romney’s response was to “double Guantanamo.”

Romney is either completely ignorant of what he is saying, or fully aware. In either case, he is representative of a large number of Americans who have largely agreed that these techniques are “acceptable” for our “security.” Regardless of how much they erode our morals, our ethics, and well, the very things we are fighting for.

If someone might have information that could prevent another terrorist attack, then I would support using torture to get this person to divulge this information.

This is perhaps the saddest thing I’ve seen in the bloggernacle.

MIGHT?

John, I think that you can have a reasonable debate about torturing people that you know have information that could immediately save a substantial number of lives. But torturing someone based on a guess or a hunch is evil and ends up being the basis of rationalizing what we’ve done at Gitmo, Abu Garub, and elsewhere.

Unfortunately I think that Jack Bauer has given torture a good name. His victims always talk and give up useful information. I would be interested to know what percentage of people that we’ve used “enhance interrogation” techniques on have given up useful information. I would guess that it is a number that you could represent with your ten fingers.

torturing people that you know have information that could immediately save a substantial number of lives

Can I add a bit to this? How can any one of us actually even KNOW that someone has certain information about an event soon transpiring that would take out a whole bunch of people? We’re still just guesstimating.

I’m curious if we were to use enhanced interrogation techniques on Mitt Romney and ask him about whether or not Saddam let inspectors into his country, just what kind of answer will we actually get. Will he tell the truth, that Saddam did indeed let inspectors in, or will he continue Bush’s lie that Saddam never let the inspectors in?

Unfortunately the real rationale behind the employment of “enhanced interrogation techniques” is the building of a mosaic. The CIA and the President feel it is okay to torture individuals who really don’t know that much, because every little piece they can force out of one of their detainees adds to the mosaic, the larger picture.

I think it is possible to uncover enough evidence against someone that you are certain they know details about a terrorist operation that would save lives. Maybe this doesn’t happen in practice, but I can come up with scenarios that seem plausible.

My point isn’t that I support torture in such circumstances but that I think it is legitimate for society to have a debate about whether we want to use torture in these situations. I certainly don’t think that torturing people because they might or might not know something is a stance that our nation can tolerate.

Mark IV, I do understand history. But you can’t change the past, two wrongs don’t make a right, and your argument doesn’t justify current torture.

John Williams, you’re willfully ignorant. There is no process for determining who is and who isn’t a terrorist, that’s my point. 80% of the people in Gitmo were not arrested by US soldiers. They were handed over to us by impoverished locals in exchange for bounty money. And we never fact checked, in part because we didn’t have enough translators on the ground. We just bagged ‘em and flew them to Cuba, where we started to use torture methods on all of them.

AnneGB, we’re using methods that were banned in US military interrogation manuals pre-911. We literally are using the same methods used by the cold war Soviets, and by Pol Pot in Cambodia. If you think waterboarding, sleep deprivation, sensory overload, stress positions, mock executions, attack dogs, and sexual humiliation aren’t torture, then ask yourself this:

Are they things we should be doing to innocent men, women, and children? Because right now we are doing these things to people of all ages, (yes, children too) without making the effort to discover whether they are terrorists or not. And Romney endorses all of this, saying he thinks we should “Double Guantanimo!”

It sounds unbelievable, I understand. But that’s why I’m so outraged at the willful ignorance of Mormons who don’t educate themselves about the facts, and who choose to blindly support the leaders who do these things in our name.

I took an oath once, by taking on the name of
Christ. And every day since, I’ve hoped that my actions wouldn’t defile his good name. And I’m asking you to seek out the facts, and discover the things that are being done in yours.

I’m honestly surprised. Do I understand you correctly, that it is better to kill somebody than to put them in a stress position or waterboard them?

You have stated that you would not use torture in the defense of your families. Would you use extreme physical force to restrain someone from harming your family? If so, in what sense does that differ from torture?

The difference between using extreme physical force (even to the point of death) against someone threatening your family and using these techniques on prisoners is the difference between a belligerent and a prisoner. One is actively threatening your family, while the other has given his life into your hands and is inoperative. Using unethical techniques on the inoperative prisoner is absolutely wrong. Using physical force against someone trying to harm your family, even to the point of killing him is justified.

I understand the argument that someone else out there might be threatening your family so you may feel justified taking the gloves off a prisoner in your hand, but you are not justified doing so. Better to spend your time and energy in finding the other man than in torturing the prisoner in your custody.

Furthermore, if you feel your family is threatened by someone and you don’t know where that individual is, remember, the Lord is on YOUR side. Ask Him! He knows all. He has promised to protect your family. Employ his help. Not only will you get more accurate information from the Lord than from some suspected terrorist, but you also do not lower your own standards, morals and ethics in the process. Instead you grow closer to the Lord. You don’t need to torture people to gather information about your enemy. Follow James’ counsel and Ask God.

dang, I thought it would automatically link to Book of Mormon chapters. Oh well, here is the relevant verses in Alma 43:23-24:

23 But it came to pass, as soon as they had departed into the wilderness Moroni sent spies into the wilderness to watch their camp; and Moroni, also, knowing of the prophecies of Alma, sent certain men unto him, desiring him that he should inquire of the Lord whither the armies of the Nephites should go to defend themselves against the Lamanites.
24 And it came to pass that the word of the Lord came unto Alma, and Alma informed the messengers of Moroni, that the armies of the Lamanites were marching round about in the wilderness, that they might come over into the land of Manti, that they might commence an attack upon the weaker part of the people. And those messengers went and delivered the message unto Moroni.

Why do we need to torture people to get information we can readily get from the Omniscient Lord of all the Earth?

If it turns out that in Guantanamo we are using interrogation techniques on people who don’t know anything about the next al-Qaeda plans, then we should stop trying to get them to divulge anything.

Seth R. (108), I disagree. What you’re saying is that 3000 lives are not worth a few days of extreme discomfort (but not death) for one al-Qaeda operative. The ugly truth is that we have to engage in this sort of human calculus.

John Williams, the administration rounds people up and tortures them even if they truthfully say that they are not Al Queda affiliates. Please read this article describing the detention of 84 civilians, including children:

Not if they are not ready to prosecute. It is against our very principles that we are supposedly fighting for to simply hold people without charging them, much less to torture them for information.

We’re NOT in a fight for our lives. Our nation is not threatened with annihilation. Al-Qaida does not have anywhere close to the power of a nation-state. We’re overstating their strength. They really are cave-dwellers. If you want to see real power, look back at World War II and the grand battles between Germany and Russia where millions obeyed the call to death in battle.

“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ….”

and the Fourteenth Ammendment says:

“No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ….”

So to arrest the suspected, without evidence, without intent to try them in a court of law, is un-American. If you believe the administration should arrest anyone it suspects, without trial, indefinitely (as is their current policy) then you are also un-American.

Here in America, ‘Evidence’ was defined hundreds of years ago and the definition has been refined to perfection ever since by the third branch of our government, the Judicial branch.

The way it’s supposed to work is, the government accuses you. Then, you go to court, and the government presents it’s evidence. If their evidence is persuasive, you will be convicted by a jury of citizens.

But if they prevent you from ever going to court in the first place, and they refuse to disclose any evidence against you, and they torture and imprison you indefinitely anyway, (as they are doing right now to thousands of people) then it’s wrong, un-Christlike, and un-American.

And if that’s what you want, then you must be un-American too. Just like Romney.

John, I’d also point out that torture simply doesn’t work. It never has.

You simply tell your torturers whatever you think they want to hear, regardless of whether it’s true. Even ancient Roman generals sneered at the reliability of information given under duress. We’ve known the torture thing is a load of hogwash for centuries. But we continue to embrace it for the sick thrills.

And for this worthless information… this one in a million chance that we might hear something useful… we are willing to utterly abdicate any moral authority or credibility America ever had in the global community.

That moral authority ALONE is worth 10,000 American deaths, if not more. I’d argue it’s priceless. And Bush has sold our birthright for a mess of cold pottage.

KevMc, If the US government apprehends a suspected terrorist who can them demonstrate that he is innocent, I’m all for letting him go. But I’m also all for keeping known terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, and hey why not double Guantanamo like Romney suggested? I’m sure there are enough terrorists in the world. Guantanamo is very small compared to the number of people in the world who would like to kill American citizens just for being American citizens.

Instead of getting agitated because Romney suggested doubling Guantanmo, a better approach would be to trim back enhanced interrogation techniques if we find that at times military personnel take it too far.

Seth R., I doubt terrorists really care if Americans have moral authority or not. They just want to kill us. Also, I find this comment distateful: “But we continue to embrace it [torture] for the sick thrills.” I regret that you made this statement, and I’m going to invite you to think about whether or not you really meant it and then maybe retract it. It is offensive to George Bush and Mitt Romney and those who support them.

John, you’re stating that prisoners should be considered guilty until proven innocent. That’s absurd and backwards.

Don’t you understand America, even just a little? What you propose is the exact opposite of what our Constitution declares to be the foundation of our country.

It’s ‘innocent until proven guilty’, John. And that’s because suspicion is not evidence, and assertion is not fact.

Until you understand that, you will never understand the difference between an innocent citizen and a terrorist. You’ll just keep believing that all our prisoners are terrorists, because Bush says so.

But I can call you all kinds of names, like un-American, evil, and cruel. I can say “John Williams is a big fat terrorist”. Or “John Williams is an enemy combatant”. And would it make these things facts, just because I said so? Of course not!

How about if I said it with an authoritative tone in my voice, wearing a fancy suit, in a big-time press conference? Would that be enough to make my assertions about you factual? Of course not!

But what if I had the power to enter your living room, abduct you, imprison and torture you, forever, simply because I asserted that you were a terrorist. Would you still believe that the standard should be ‘guilty until proven innocent’? Would you still believe that suspicion was the same thing as evidence? Would you still believe that assertions were the same thing as facts?

Of course not.

Because assertions are not facts. And without evidence, all the Bush administration offers about these prisoners is assertions. It’s nothing more than name-calling. And while you won’t believe the things I say about you, you’re more than happy to blindly accept the assertions Bush makes about our captives in Guantanimo.

And if 85% of current prisoners are innocent, then Guantanimo has plenty of wasted capacity at current levels. I have no problem incarcerating proven terrorists, but the administration works overtime to prevent prisoners from ever seeing a courtroom. They do their best to prevent prisoners from proving their own innocence.

It’s indefensible for any American. And since Romney sustains the whole thing, he’s indefensible as an American, much less as our next President.

KevMc, The Bush Administration does not just label random Arabs as terrorists and then apprehend them. They target potential terrorists based on evidence. Then they release them if they turn out not to be terrorists. A lot of people have been released from Guantanamo. Finding out who is and who is not a terrorist is not as simple as you indicate. Please do not fall for the simplistic liberal rhetoric about how Bush and Cheney have no respect for human rights. They are trying to keep the next September 11th from happening. It’s not exactly a cake walk, and mistakes have been made and they will be made in the future. The key is to be reasonable about the whole situation. Romney appears to be willing to continue the effort to curb terrorism, so let’s give him some credit for that.

Once again John, you are choosing to remain ignorant when faced with facts that you don’t like. Far from ‘simplistic liberal rhetoric’, I’ve given you two specific examples today with documentary evidence.

In one example, a woman describes her captivity, saying “there were many children among the detainees, including one seven-month-old infant”.

So tell me John, are the children terrorists, or does that sound random enough for you?

In my other example, John Ashcroft (former Attorney General) admitted that he transferred a suspect out of the justice system into military detention so he could be “more effectively interrogated”. Their transfer to military detention, for this stated reason, is proof that they did not have evidence worthy of a conviction in a court of law.

So I’ve offerred specific examples, and you’ve countered with vague platitudes. You’re the one with simplistic rhetoric.

And if you’re so determined to ignore evidence you don’t like, then you’re a true believer, and I don’t mean that as a compliment.

Who gives a damn whether the terrorists are impressed with our “moral authority” or not?

I’m really not concerned with what they think to begin with. Since when did they become our guidepost for how to act as a nation?

If the sick thrills comment is offensive, I’d submit it’s because it hits a little close to home. The entire war on terror has been nothing more than empty macho posturing by little people who have little faith in God or righteousness, but whose hearts are filled with fear.

I’m not the slightest bit afraid of al Quaeda. But I am afraid of the consequences when our people turn from the faith and trust wholly in the arm of the flesh.

The repeated story of the Book of Mormon has been that, for the Nephites, “moral authority” has been far more important than any military defenses they might have had.

The day America completely loses this moral authority will be the day God allows its destruction.

KevMc, If the US government apprehends a suspected terrorist who can them demonstrate that he is innocent, Iâ€™m all for letting him go.

That is NOT the way justice works. The burden of proof always lies on the accuser to prove guilt, not on the accused to prove innocence. I am leaning with KevMc and wondering if you even know how justice works here in America.

My point exactly. Let’s preserve human life against terrorists. They don’t care about moral authority.

By making a derogatory comment like this about George Bush, Mitt Romney, and people who support them, you appear to be unwittingly betraying your inability to thoughtfully approach the problems facing the United States.

As a non-mormon who has been studying your religion, I believe that if most Christians knew about some of your bizarre beliefs, you might be in trouble with the non-mormon populace again. You have a lot in common with Scientology, both religions made up by intelligent con-artists.

[…] pointing out the obvious that Christ will appear at the Mount of Olives at the Second Coming.Â Â Â Fowles treats my quote on Jesus in Missouri as if it were mutually exclusive to His first appearance…: The scriptures read and believed by Latter-day Saints weigh against Tom Groverâ€™s incredulous […]

Hi, I am not Mormon, but respect all faiths…I do not understand something.

I have read the 10th article & understand the “second coming” but I don’t understand how this aritcle relates to Indepence, Missouri. Was this a prophecy or something? Unless I need to read more, I see nothing about Missouri? Could someone explain how this evolved?
Thank you.

Hi, I’m not Mormon, so forgive my lack of information, but I don’t understand something. Out of curiosity, I read the 10th article. I understand about the “second coming” but how on earth was Independence, Missouri evolved from this article? Was this a prophecy? How did Missouri out of all states be transalated into this prophecy? Because I didn’t read anything about Missouri in article 10.
Thank You.

You’re right that the 10th Article of Faith is irrelevant to the question of whether Jesus will appear at the Mount of Olives at the Second Coming. Latter-day Saints believe that after he appears at the Mount of Olives as prophesied in the Bible, he will play a role in a gathering that will occur on the American continent during the Millenium. For Latter-day Saints, the Millenium means the same thing as for creedal Christians, i.e. the 1,000 year period after the calamities associated with Christ’s Second Coming.

I donâ€™t know that Romneyâ€™s response is necessarily in conflict with Mormon teachings.

Iâ€™ve done some reading on the subject (even [literally] dusting off my copy of Mormon Doctrine) and I havenâ€™t really found any indication that the second coming per se will be in Missouri. Malachi 3:1 and Doctrine and Covenants 36:8 state that the Lord will â€œsuddenly come to his temple.â€ McConkie (pp. 694-4; 696) regards this to be at least partially fulfilled by Christâ€™s appearance in the Kirtland Temple, but also looks to a future fulfillment in the Temple in Jackson County. This appears to be a private appearance, and BRM specifically states that the appearance in the temple â€œdoes not have reference to his appearance at the great and dreadful day, for that coming will be when he sets his foot upon the Mount of Olives.â€

There are also references to Christ appearing at the Grand Council at Adam-Ondi-Ahman (McConkie 694; Teachings 157) and receiving the keys from Adam, but this also appears to be a private appearance occurring *prior* to the second coming.

McConkie (pp. 696-7) quotes Zechariah 14:3-4 as a reference for the second coming on the Mount of Olives, and indicates that he will *subsequently* appear â€œupon the mighty ocean, even the great deep, and upon the islands of the sea and upon the land of Zion. And he shall utter his voice out of Zion and shall speak from Jerusalem, and his voice shall be heard among all people.â€ (Doctrine and Covenants 133:20-21)

The tenth Article of Faith doesnâ€™t refer to the second coming, but to the establishment of the New Jerusalem.

What I get from all that is that the second coming as such will be on the Mount of Olives, but that there will be prior private appearances in Jackson County and elsewhere. After the second coming, he is expected to appear in various places throughout the world (including Missouri), and to reign during the millennium from both the Old and New Jerusalems.

In short, I donâ€™t think Romney is incorrect in locating the second coming strictly on the Mount of Olives, although clearly it is taught that there will be appearances both before and after the second coming in Missouri and elsewhere.

Holy F*ck you people are frightening. No wonder the founder of the mormon cult was dragged from jail and lynch by a mob before the governor signed the execution order for all mormons. JC save me from your most dangerous followers.

[…] in terms of Romney’s Mormonism, especially if Romney details how Jesus intends to return to the promised land in Missouri. Truth is Conservatives think it is Kansas anyway. After you get done clicking your […]